JUNE23, 2017
Infallibility of the Pope, Councils, Papal and Vatican Documents -02
The Magisterium: A Cheat Sheet
By Steve Skojec, June 23, 2017
Over the past few days, as I’ve worked on this piece(), I’ve learned a lot about the Church’s magisterial office. Perhaps it would be better to say I learned how much I don’t know.
As I mentioned in the article linked above. I’m not a dogmatic theologian. In fact, I’m not even any kind of theologian, whatever my degree says. A BA in Theology is pretty much a ticket to the entry level of inquiry on this stuff. I am, at best, a more-informed-than-average layman.
My friend and colleague, Dr. Michael Sirilla,isa dogmatic theologian. He is also a walking, talking, Catholic encyclopedia. I called him yesterday (and the day before that), and even recovering from a pretty serious health issue, he was still gushing forth information at a speed my flu-addled brain couldn’t hope to keep up with. Whereas the average dutiful Catholic knows that thereisa Magisterium, dogmatic theologians spend much of their careers studying all of its many moving parts. It’s sort of like the difference between being a guy who loves a particular sports car, and can tell you what kind of engine it has, and how many liters, etc., and being the guy who can strip that engine down and re-assemble it without having to look at any reference material. Or, as Mike said to me, “It’s sort of like being a surgeon with a particular specialization.” Not even all the other doctors are going to know how to do it, let alone the armchair theologians on the Internet.
The most surprising thing to me was learning that the Church doesn’t have a single repository of knowledge about its own teaching office. There isn’t a document you can read somewhere that breaks down the various levels of the Magisterium and all its moving parts, with categorizations of when and where each thing is authoritative and how it relates to others. Like a giant theological scavenger hunt, you can find pieces of this puzzle in the Catechism, in a couple of instructions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (like Donum Veritatis and Professio Fidei), in a letter from Bl. Pope Pius IX, in the dogmatic constitutionDei Filiusfrom Vatican I, in dogmatic constitutionLumen Gentiumfrom Vatican II, and so on, and so forth.
One thing I learned yesterday is that the ordinary magisterium (which the Church didn’t really start discussingin earnestuntil the late 19th century) can be infallible but isn’t always so. Another is that the ordinary universal magisterium isusuallyinfallible, but some theologians can point to exceptions. (One example I came across involved the teaching in the Catechism ofTrent about delayed animation — the idea that the soul enters the body sometime after conception vs. more recent magisterial teachings that say ensoulment happensatconception. Both things having been taught at the level of ordinary universal magisterium.)
(ENSOULMENT-WHEN DOES IT OCCUR?-RON SMITH
)
I was also given cause to reflect on the difference between a truth that is infallible and one that is without error. As one theologian who wrote to me yesterday made the distinction:
There is indeed a distinction between an infallible statement and an error free statement.
But an infallible statement is precisely a statement that *cannot possibly* be in error.
X *is not* false does not equal infallible.
X *cannot possibly be* false equals infallible.
It’s one thing to read all of this and say, “Sure, that makes sense.” It’s another entirely to have it mapped out so clearly in your head that when you’re having a casual conversation (or worse, a Twitter argument with the guy who doesn’t care much for your rebuttal to his sloppy article saying Amoris Laetitia is Magisterial so we all need to just shut up) you never fail to make an important qualification. For my part, I’d certainly prefer to leave this topic to the experts. The headache I ended each day’s writing with for the past two days is not something I’d wish on anyone. (Except maybe Stephen Walford or Austen Ivereigh. But only if they actually learned something.)
Since I’m unlikely to have seen the last of this topic, however much I might wish to move on, last night, Mike Sirilla wrote up a Magisterium “cheat sheet” and sent it to me. It’s a work in progress and subject to revision, but since I thought it might be helpful to all of the theology nerds following along at home, and he graciously gave me permission to publish it and put his name on it. He reminded me that theologians are still hammering out the finer points on this stuff, and there’s a constant process of evaluation of what fits where. “This is really important,” he said, “because Christ gave a share of His teaching office to the bishops and the pope.”
I’ll includethe text of his outline below, but here’s a link to a PDF version if you want to download it and/or print it out.
THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
A “Cheat Sheet”/Quick Reference Guide
Definitions:
Magisterium: the teaching office of a pope or a bishop in union with the pope
Extraordinary magisterium: non-ordinary solemn teaching
Ordinary magisterium: part of the regular teaching duties
Universal magisterium: taught to the entire Church
Infallible (irreformable): unable to be in error due to a special charism from Christ and, therefore, unable to be reformed
Non-infallible (reformable): able to be false (very rare) and, therefore, able to be reformed (which means clarified, corrected – even overturned/contradicted – see example below)
* * *
The following outline is drawn from my Fundamental Theology class notes and from the CDF document “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei”:
I. Dogmas of divine and catholic faith:
A. Doctrines that are “divinely and formally revealed”
B. Manner and quality of proposal – infallible in each instance:
1.) Extraordinary Magisterium:
a.) Papal: “ex cathedra” solemn definitions
b.) Solemn definitions of ecumenical councils:
2.) Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
a.) Pope alone: confirmation or re-affirmation of a doctrine
b.) Bishops in communion with the pope teaching something to be held definitively as revealed.
C. Assent: theological faith
D. Censure: Heresy
E. Examples:
1.) The articles of faith of the Creed
2.) Christological and Marian dogmas
3.) Doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace
II. Definitive teachings on faith and morals (or intrinsically connected to faith and morals):
A. Teachings that are not proposed as being formally revealed (i.e., they may or may not be revealed, but they are not proposed by the magisterium as being revealed).
B. Manner and quality of proposal – infallible in each instance
1.) Extraordinary Magisterium:
a.) Papal: “ex cathedra” solemn definitions
b.) Solemn definitions of ecumenical councils:
2.) Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
a.) Pope alone: confirmation or re-affirmation of a doctrine
b.) Bishops in communion with the pope teaching something to be held definitively as revealed.
C. Assent: firmly to be accepted and held based on “faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistanceto the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of theMagisterium in these matters”
D. Censure: loss of full communion with the Catholic Church
E. Examples:
1.) Logical connection to divine revelation (by implication, these may be able to be declared as divinely revealed):
a.) The doctrine of papal infallibility before Vatican I
b.) Doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men
c.) The illicitness of euthanasia
d.) Illicitness of prostitution
e.) Illicitness of fornication
2.) Necessary historical connection to divine revelation (not able to be declared as divinely revealed):
a.) The legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff
b.) The legitimacy of the celebration of an ecumenical council
c.) The canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)
d.) The declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter ApostolicaeCurae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations
III. Non-definitive teachings of the magisterium:
A. Teachings on faith and morals (or connected thereto) presented as true (or at least assure) that have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitiveby the ordinary and universal Magisterium
B. Manner of proposal: ordinary and universal Magisterium (the pope alone, or pope and bishops together)
These teachings are NOT infallible and therefore they are reformable (i.e., able to be modified, clarified, corrected, or contradicted/overturned)
C. Assent: Religious submission of will and intellect
D. Censure: Erroneous or (regarding prudential teachings) rash/dangerous
E. Examples:
a.) The teaching of Florence that the matter of Holy Orders is the handing on of the instruments
b.) The teaching of the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) on delayed animation
c.) JPII’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae that capital punishment may only be used for a polis to defend itself (“self-defense”)
d.) Global warming is real and it is caused by man (Laudato Si)
e.) Gaudium et Spes, a. 24, First and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor
10 of 51 readers’ comments
1.I wrote the above outline in haste last night and noticed at least one error that I'd like to correct (more corrections may be forthcoming): the example I cite from "Laudato Si" is likely not a non-definitive teaching of the pope's ordinary magisterium since it does not bear upon faith and morals - at least not directly.
Also, the teaching on delayed animation is not in the Council of Trent but in the Catechism of Trent (the Roman Catechism).
Also, I'd like to suggest two books by Fr. Chad Ripperger in which he does a fine job distilling much of the manual tradition (which distills and elaborates upon the medievals, who distill and elaborate upon the fathers, who distill and elaborate upon the teaching of Paul [e.g., Gal 1:8) and Christ [Mt 18:15-17]):
1. "The Binding Force of Tradition" and
2. "Magisterial Authority."
Finally, for those interested in plowing further into the sources, here are two solid tomes that serve as a decent point-of-entry:
1. "De Notus Theologicus: Historia, Notio, Usus," by Constantino Koser, OFM and
2. "L'Erreur et Son Juge: Remarques sur les censures doctrinales a l'epoque moderne," by Bruno Neveu.
-Michael Sirilla
2. Thanks, Mike. I fixed the reference to Trent...that was my bad memory, not your fault.
As for Laudato Si, it's an encyclical, so it seems like it needs to be in the list here somewhere. –Steve Skojec
3. We see MANY statements in the current pontificate where the Pope speaks on issues that in past days would not even be considered topics of faith and morals, yet are being treated as such today.
Or, put another way, we see certain "new laws" being established that might be said to form a "hedge about the law" a la the Pharisees of old, in for example, the condemnation of the use of air-conditioning or other "environmental sins" created sort of ex nihilo as a whole new set of what are arguably impossible to obey laws. This has troubled me because as a convert I affirm the Catholic teaching that God does not demand of us what we cannot achieve, we only miss the mark because of our sin and personal choices. Yet it would seem that this new set of "sins" are acts largely impossible for a person to avoid merely by living in today's world.
This has grave consequences, for if such sins are a sort of perpetual and impossible to avoid continuance of original sin, then baptism means nothing and neither does confession or penance. Which, when you think about it, appears to be the exact ulterior motive of the powers-that-be: to hold in their hand a way to condemn whoever they want to condemn while remaining above it all themselves, all the while diminishing the value of the Sacraments and Tradition by making adultery the moral equal of flipping an extra light on in the living room.
People are not stupid, and quickly smell a rat, and in quick time will have no regard for the concept of sin itself. A situation that already appears to be upon us...
Certainly these sins of carbon footprint shoe size don't seem to apply to those like Al Gore, Leonardo de Caprio and the Pope whose lives and message are soimportant that the size of THEIR carbon footprint is immaterial to their personal moral culpability while it is quite relevant to "ours". The Jet Set classes of Hollywood, the Hague and the Vatican can flitter about leaving contrails all over heaven itself and incur no guilt, while the rest of us slobs are in danger of hellfire for having a pet or going for a motorbike ride.
4. I'd like to ask Dr. Sirilla a question, not a technical one at all, just seeking his opinion.
Do you think Dr. Sirilla that the damage done to Catholic doctrine in recent decades is so great that after the Restoration to come (whenever it is), Catholics then living are likely to see a number of infallible pronouncements by the then Pope because that will be the only possible way to put various genies back for good in their bottles? There are all sorts of examples one could imagine.
5. Yes. Unless, of course, Christ's second coming happens first.-Michael Sirilla
6.Thank you. I believe that a long, very solemn teaching Pontificate is now urgently needed. But I myself think we are on the very edge of things. A Chastisement is very close; the End of Time itself maybe further off.
7. Given the great apostasy we are living in, which goes all the way to the top, the Second Coming cannot be all that far off.
8.It seems to me that Bishop Athanasius Schneider is similarly predisposed in calling for a Syllabus of Errors pertaining to interpretations of Vatican 2 as well. The fact is, in common talk, doctrine is so variable or as I like to put it, the "Teaching on the street" has changed so much, the Church desperately needs for lack of a better term, a "theologically violent" series of clarifications.Without them, in effect, we are difficult to distinguish from the Anglican Communion.
9.I was away from the Church for several years. I returned via a series of steps, the last of which was Anglicanism. Once back in the fold, I was dumbfounded to discover that the Novus Ordo is virtually identical to the Anglican mass in their Book of Common Prayer (this was before the new innovations of recent years).
10.I came to the Church directly from Lutheranism {raised Methodist, then Anglican and then Reformed all in the search for the truth!} only to find Luther resurrected in much of what I saw.
Praise God for my wonderful FSSP parish!!!
May God save and protect the Catholic Church!
Is Amoris Laetitia an Expression of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium?
By Steve Skojec, June 22, 2017
Earlier this week, papal biographer and Crux contributing editor Austen Ivereigh fired off a bravado-laden tweet about Amoris Laetitia (AL) and the corresponding dubia:
Unsurprisingly, this promptedsome rebuttals. After asserting that in the matter of AL, we are faced with a case of “Roma locuta, causa finita” (Rome has spoken, the cause is finished), and in another comment insisting that AL is merely “development of doctrine” which has “been happening since Pentecost,” Ivereigh threw down the gauntlet:
Stephen Walford’s piece atVatican Insider*has been out for a while.
Published in February of this year, it had its chance to make the rounds, but little came of it. I cannot recall seeing a single rebuttal of it, which apparently leads Ivereigh to believe it’s “irrefutable.”
It’s certainly not irrefutable, but its argumentation is messy, which makes it difficult to respond to succinctly.
But since the question of what papal authority includes — and what it doesn’t — is such a common and contentious topic these days, I thought it might be worth the effort.
* 07/02/2017
Problematic Premises, Faulty Conclusions
Walfordmakes two major mistakes in his analysis, the first of which is begging the question.
He builds his analysis on the false premises that AL is:
a) a legitimate expression of the authentic papal/ordinary magisterium and
b) a work that is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that therefore
c) To oppose it is to “call into question the teaching authority of previous popes and consequently the entire fabric of Catholicism”.
“In particular,” Walford writes, “Amoris Laetitia has led many traditionalists to the conclusion that Pope Francis is at least deliberately “allowing” error and possibly even teaching heresy.”
Walford’s second mistake follows from the first. Armed with the certitude that the faithful owe assent to AL, he never — not even once — addresses the reasons why people are reaching theconclusion that there are serious problems with the document. He does not reference, for example, the 19 theological censures proposed by 45 highly-qualified Catholic scholars and pastors from around the world. He does not attempt in any way to reconcile the questions posed in thedubiathat exist in direct response to the obvious and doctrinally-contrary reading of AL. Five of his 12 footnotes are taken from the teaching ofPope John Paul II, but he never discussesthe way AL runs roughshod overFamiliaris Consortioor, for that matter, Veritatis Splendor.He also ignores the countless articles that have been written and statements that have been made by theologians, philosophers, priests, bishops, and Catholic intellectuals of all stripes, parsing the troubling bits of AL down to their theological molecules and demonstrating why there’s very much a problem here.
Bizarrely, his argument studiously ignores what the entire Amoris Laetitiacontroversy is about. Instead, it essentially boils down to:the pope said it, and you have to do whatever he says because he’s the boss of you.
What is the “Magisterium”, Anyway?
The word “magisterium” comes from the Latin word, “magister”, which means, “teacher.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Churchdescribes the magisterium as“the living teaching office of the Church” whose task is to give “an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in written form or in the form of Tradition”. The Church’s authority to do this is “exercised in the name of Jesus Christ,” which means that “the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter”.